Musical Blind Spots
John Gavin
Listening to Pletnev's recording of music of C.P.E. Bach - I'm
enjoying the playing itself and the fine recorded sound by DG but 3/4
of the way through I realize I just DON'T GET this music. Beyond a
certain vague rococo charm this music just doesn't stick in any way.
Does anyone out there have a strong conviction about this music?
Another blind spot for me is the music of Hummel. This includes the
chamber music, Piano Sonatas and Concertos. People have raved about
Stephen Hough's recording of 2 concerti, and yes, the playing is very
fine, but again, the music just makes no impact on me as anything
other than diversionary and mediocre.
I'll just conclude for now that we have musical blind spots.
Simon Roberts
>
>Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
Heavens, yes. Vast tracts of the stuff, including all of Debussy and Ravel.
Much of the time I don't doubt the quality of the music (Debussy and Ravel, for
instance), though in other instances I think it's just junk.
>Listening to Pletnev's recording of music of C.P.E. Bach - I'm
>enjoying the playing itself and the fine recorded sound by DG but 3/4
>of the way through I realize I just DON'T GET this music. Beyond a
>certain vague rococo charm this music just doesn't stick in any way.
>Does anyone out there have a strong conviction about this music?
I usually like his solo keyboard music, but was disappointed by this disc, which
has the virtues you describe but also important interpretative flaws - this is
frequently quirky music, with abrupt shifts of mood etc. Pletnev seems to be
trying to make it all sound as smooth and pretty as possible. He succeeds
admirably but, to these ears, entirely misses the point.
>
>Another blind spot for me is the music of Hummel. This includes the
>chamber music, Piano Sonatas and Concertos. People have raved about
>Stephen Hough's recording of 2 concerti, and yes, the playing is very
>fine, but again, the music just makes no impact on me as anything
>other than diversionary and mediocre.
That's my reaction to the concertos too. The sonatas and piano trios strike me
as much better, but still....
Simon
Johannes Roehl
>
> Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
Of course. But it's unclear, if 'don't get' means only 'don't like' or
'be indifferent' or 'think they are plain bad/third rate' or tsomething
else
> Listening to Pletnev's recording of music of C.P.E. Bach - I'm
> enjoying the playing itself and the fine recorded sound by DG but 3/4
> of the way through I realize I just DON'T GET this music. Beyond a
> certain vague rococo charm this music just doesn't stick in any way.
> Does anyone out there have a strong conviction about this music?
I do not know this particular disc, but I'd suggest that you should try
his symphonies for strings (Hamburg symphonies); I am not sure if there
is a good complete recording, but there are some on discs by the
Akademie fuer Alte Musik and one with three (+two concerti) by the
Freiburger Barockorchester (on harmonia mundi).
This is actually rather wild music (somewhat similar to the middle Haydn
symphonies like the Farewell), no rococo at all. I'd also recommend a
disc by Fortepianist Staier and two other musicians with three quartets
for flute, viola and keyboard (also dhm). Here one may find some traces
of rococo elegance, but overall Ilike it quite a bit. CPE Bach seems to
have experimented with various styles, sometimes stil close to the
baroque, sometimes rococo, sometimes more similar to haydn and early
Beethoven. Some pieces probably do not hold together very well, because
of these features, but I found the pieces mentioned to be very
interesting music.
Johannes
Andy Evans
Renaissance dirges sung by a plummy voiced choir of English counter tenors.
Composer is probably called 'Fortinbras de la Tour Abolie' or something like
that, and the group probably records regularly for BBC Radio 3.
=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Matthew Silverstein
> Heavens, yes. Vast tracts of the stuff, including all of Debussy and
Ravel.
> Much of the time I don't doubt the quality of the music (Debussy and
Ravel, for
> instance), though in other instances I think it's just junk.
Out of curiosity, what are some of the other instances?
Matty (who is looking to start a fight)
Simon Smith
Simon Roberts <sd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <77a67936.03090...@posting.google.com>, John Gavin
> says...
> >
> > Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
>
> Heavens, yes. Vast tracts of the stuff, including all of Debussy and
> Ravel. Much of the time I don't doubt the quality of the music (Debussy
> and Ravel, for instance), though in other instances I think it's just
> junk.
Oh thank G*d! I was starting to worry that I was the only one... Really, it
makes me feel ill. (I think it's a French music problem, I mean lots of
Messiaen does the same to me.)
--
Simon Smith | http://www.ingemisco.com/
"I am myself only in music. Music is enough for a whole lifetime - but a
lifetime is not enough for music." - Sergei Rachmaninov
Kelly P. Clark
Opera...all opera...period. Tried and failed...some choral music,
especially Berlioz...aside from his orchestral music, I just can't
listen. Strange considering I'll listen to Berio, Ligetti...as for
contemporaries, I really struggle with Carter...but I'm certain I'm
not alone.
William Quentin (Bloom)
>Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
>
>
>I'll just conclude for now that we have musical blind spots.
I have so many blind spots I'm lucky I don't walk in front of a truck.
My biggest one is in the area of post-Romantic British music. Elgar,
Vaughn-Williams, Holst, Arnold, Bax, Bliss...they're all lost on me.
I have a recording of The Planets (which I almost never listen to),
but beyond that I don't own any recordings of their music. I also
don't much see the point of Rachmaninov -- I have one CD of his music,
and I don't see myself buying any more in the foreseeable future.
-Billy
Simon Roberts
>
>In message <bjkq1...@drn.newsguy.com>
> Simon Roberts <sd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <77a67936.03090...@posting.google.com>, John Gavin
>> says...
>> >
>> > Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
>>
>> Heavens, yes. Vast tracts of the stuff, including all of Debussy and
>> Ravel. Much of the time I don't doubt the quality of the music (Debussy
>> and Ravel, for instance), though in other instances I think it's just
>> junk.
>
>Oh thank G*d! I was starting to worry that I was the only one... Really, it
>makes me feel ill. (I think it's a French music problem, I mean lots of
>Messiaen does the same to me.)
Going back a bit, more-or-less the entire French baroque is lost on me too.
Maybe our first names have something to do with it....
Simon
Simon Roberts
Silverstein says...
If you really want to *start* a fight you should name your own junk....
Simon
EDS
news:77a67936.03090...@posting.google.com...
> Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
>
> Listening to Pletnev's recording of music of C.P.E. Bach - I'm
> enjoying the playing itself and the fine recorded sound by DG but 3/4
> of the way through I realize I just DON'T GET this music. Beyond a
> certain vague rococo charm this music just doesn't stick in any way.
> Does anyone out there have a strong conviction about this music?
I listened to Pletnev's CPE Bach. It's not you, it's the performance. It
didn't touch me at all.
Johannes Roehl
This I find strange, do you really find Handel so entirely different
from Rameau that you like one and can't stand the other? Or Bach's
keyboard music and Couperin?
(I have a curious problem with french singing, it just doesn't work well
for me, but some music I like enough to listen anyway; no problem with
french music in general, although it took me some time to like Debussy)
Johannes
Matthew Silverstein
> If you really want to *start* a fight you should name your own junk....
That's fair.
Matty (who is looking for Simon to start a fight . . .)
Simon Roberts
>
>Simon Roberts schrieb:
>>
>> In article <a925522f...@sds46.clare.cam.ac.uk>, Simon Smith says...
>> >
>> >In message <bjkq1...@drn.newsguy.com>
>> > Simon Roberts <sd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Heavens, yes. Vast tracts of the stuff, including all of Debussy and
>> >> Ravel. Much of the time I don't doubt the quality of the music (Debussy
>> >> and Ravel, for instance), though in other instances I think it's just
>> >> junk.
>> >
>> >Oh thank G*d! I was starting to worry that I was the only one... Really, it
>> >makes me feel ill. (I think it's a French music problem, I mean lots of
>> >Messiaen does the same to me.)
>>
>> Going back a bit, more-or-less the entire French baroque is lost on me too.
>
>This I find strange, do you really find Handel so entirely different
>from Rameau that you like one and can't stand the other?
Yes.
Or Bach's
>keyboard music and Couperin?
Yes, though I can take the latter in very small doses when played on the piano.
>(I have a curious problem with french singing,
Do you mean French music for voice, or French singers, or both (or something
else)?
Simon
Lena
>
> Listening to Pletnev's recording of music of C.P.E. Bach - I'm
> enjoying the playing itself and the fine recorded sound by DG but 3/4
> of the way through I realize I just DON'T GET this music. Beyond a
> certain vague rococo charm this music just doesn't stick in any way.
> Does anyone out there have a strong conviction about this music?
It's possible your reaction has more to do with Pletnev? Do you like
Haydn's piano sonatas?
The CPE Bach keyboard works seem entertainingly quirky to me. IMO the
general fancifulness, frequent surprises and changes of direction, and
even the volatile emotionalism don't evoke rococo, but point more to
Haydn and Beethoven. (Though obviously these are CPE Bach's own
traits.) Haydn's piano sonatas quite possibly owe more than a bit of
a debt to this guy...
I agree that CPE Bach's music doesn't hang together as well as, say,
that of his father (or that of the Classicists) - but I find myself
liking it in part just for this endearingly haphazard feeling... the
music can seem almost a bit nutty in its spontaneity. Although large
amounts of CPE Bach at one go may get tiring.
(Sorry, I find myself echoing Johannes, who wrote a very good
description of CPE Bach's style.)
I can't recommend a performer unfortunately.
> Another blind spot for me is the music of Hummel. This includes the
> chamber music, Piano Sonatas and Concertos.
I'll agree on the piano works (the main Hummel I've heard).
My musical blind spots? Sigh.
Well, let's put it this way. I'm proud to say that, although I'm
blind as a bat, at least I do *not* have any spots near Debussy.
Unlike some. :) I make up for that by being bored by all Ravel
except the Bolero. :)
Lena
Simon Roberts
Silverstein says...
>
>Simon wrote:
>
>> If you really want to *start* a fight you should name your own junk....
>
>That's fair.
I try.
Simon
Ian Pace
Blind Spots: A lot of Mendelssohn (but maybe I'll come round to that
in time). Taken me a long time to really get much out of Mozart,
including the operas (period performances have gone a long way to
changing my views on this) - still prefer Haydn in many ways, though.
Richard Strauss can also be difficult, but again I can believe that my
opinion on that will change (maybe studying him as one of my A-Level
set composers left my view somewhat tainted).
Earlier Russian music isn't a big love; there are bits of Mussorgsky,
Balakirev, Borodin, Tchaikovsky, later Rachmaninov, that are
interesting, but I can see what it is that Stravinsky and to some
extent Prokofiev wanted to make a break with. Scriabin is a very
mixed composer.
Quite a bit of mid-period Stravinsky, though there are gems as well
(but why is the Concerto for Two Pianos so highly rated?).
Britten.
Shostakovich.
Most of British music between the death of Purcell and the mid-1950s.
British music gets going again with Birtwistle, Maxwell Davies,
Cardew, then later Ferneyhough, Finnissy and others.
Most of the British music that is popular in its home country from
generations younger than Birtwistle (and I don't count Ferneyhough,
Finnissy, Dillon, Barrett, et al as 'popular').
The types of American composers that are taken up by American
orchestras.
Most minimalist composers younger than Young, Riley, Reich, Glass.
Most Dutch music (not Sweelinck or Vermeulen, though)
Quite a bit of Kurtag (seems like the surface trappings of a received
'musicality' without much of the substance a lot of the time,
commodity music; nonetheless there are a few remarkable pieces)
On a more positive note, there is very little Baroque music of one
type or other that doesn't have some interest. As the centuries
progress, the chances of a mediocre sample of the music of the period
being of interest are fewer and fewer (a very mediocre work from today
is of minimal interest, I reckon).
Ian
RX-01
I also don't get most of Ravel's and Debussy's music. And Hummel's piano
concertos. Oh, and Schumman's piano music sounds too simple to me.
RX-01
--
To reply be e-mail, add the word kons before the number.
John Gavin
> In article <77a67936.03090...@posting.google.com>, John Gavin says...
> >
> >Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
>
> Heavens, yes. Vast tracts of the stuff, including all of Debussy and Ravel.
> Much of the time I don't doubt the quality of the music (Debussy and Ravel, for
> instance), though in other instances I think it's just junk.
>
just didn't get, the name Ravel popped up in my head as a composer I
reacted to in the opposite way. Every page of his output is golden to
me. I love his music - all of it!! Funny how different we all are.
>
RX-01
There's a lot of music I don't get (in alphabetical order):
Bach: Bradenburg concertos
Most of Bach's choral music, except St. John's Passion
Berlioz: Requiem, Symphonie Fantastique
Brahms: Solo piano music sounds too simplistic
Debussy: His piano music, the string quartet.
Faure: Requiem
Handel: his oratorios!
Mahler: Das Lied von der Erde
Messiaen: Quartet for the end of time
Ravel: most of his piano music
Saint-Saens: Carnival of the animals
Schumann: his piano music, his piano concerto
Shostakovich: the 15th symphony (though I love it!), the 6th
Sibelius: the 5th and 7th (again I love these works but cannot grasp them)
Stravinksy: the violin concerto
Tchaikovsky: symphonies 1-3
Many times I have tried to "grasp" the above works but usually I get
either bored or cannot focus. So far, there have been 3 composers whose
works I find that I don't have any blind spots: Haydn, Beethoven, Bruckner.
Johannes Roehl
> I agree that CPE Bach's music doesn't hang together as well as, say,
> that of his father (or that of the Classicists) - but I find myself
> liking it in part just for this endearingly haphazard feeling... the
> music can seem almost a bit nutty in its spontaneity. Although large
> amounts of CPE Bach at one go may get tiring.
>
> (Sorry, I find myself echoing Johannes, who wrote a very good
> description of CPE Bach's style.)
<blush>
Yours is much better, I just wrote that he sounds a little like some
middle-period Haydn (and of course it actually is the other way round),
anyway the rococo impression of the original poster hast to be mainly
Pletnev's fault in this case.
> My musical blind spots? Sigh.
>
> Well, let's put it this way. I'm proud to say that, although I'm
> blind as a bat, at least I do *not* have any spots near Debussy.
> Unlike some. :) I make up for that by being bored by all Ravel
> except the Bolero. :)
Because of that movie? ;-)
Seriously, I recently discovered Ravel's Piano trio and like it
immensely, probably more than anything of his music I heard before, but
it's more classicist than impressionist (whatever this shold mean
precisely), so that may be one reason (for me).
Johannes
Johannes Roehl
> >(I have a curious problem with french singing,
>
> Do you mean French music for voice, or French singers, or both (or something
> else)?
I do not like the sound of the French language when sung (so that
applies to Gluck sung bei people of whatever nationality as long as it's
in French). Of course I do listen to some such pieces, because I like
the music, but I would prefer it to be sung in Italian (or German or
English).
I don't mind the sound of spoken French, although I do no think it is
half as beautiful as most Non-French people seem to find it to be, and
if I cared about popular French Chanson or Jazz or whatever I wouldn't
mind the language there either. But the nasals and the syllables which
are usually almost swallowed but pronounced in classical style singing
and maybe some other features of the language I just do not like in
combination with classical singing.
Johannes
Mark Stenroos
> >> Heavens, yes. Vast tracts of the stuff, including all of Debussy and
> >> Ravel. Much of the time I don't doubt the quality of the music (Debussy
> >> and Ravel, for instance), though in other instances I think it's just
> >> junk.
Someone else jumped n:
> >Oh thank G*d! I was starting to worry that I was the only one... Really, it
> >makes me feel ill. (I think it's a French music problem, I mean lots of
> >Messiaen does the same to me.)
>
> Going back a bit, more-or-less the entire French baroque is lost on me too.
> Maybe our first names have something to do with it....
>
> Simon>>
Interesting how tastes differ.
I love Debussy & Ravel. I love most opera. Pelleas & L'enfant are two
of my favorite operas.
I find Messiaen interesting - I don't dislike his music, but I don't
feel a close identity with it.
My big blind spot - Mozart. I like a few pieces (Linz Symphony, Sym
29), appreciate the rest of it...and love none of it.
And I'm not even that big a fan of Glenn Gould (cryptic disliking
Mozart reference)!
David7Gable
>>Oh thank G*d! I was starting to worry that I was the only one [not to
get/like Debussy and Ravel]...
lots of
>>>Messiaen does the same to me.)
For years I didn't get Debussy. It just sounded like film music to me, and I
couldn't understand the awe in which he was held by Boulez and Stravinsky. Now
I think La mer is a far richer, far more substantial, subtle, and ambiguous
piece than Rite of Spring any day of the week.
I think I "get" Ravel. I just don't like his music all that much. I also
think Debussy's a better composer.
I also have friends who love "modern' music and composers like Carter who
dislike Boulez precisely because of his Frenchness. I think a taste for Manet,
Monet, Degas, Cézanne, Rimbaud, Debussy, Matisse, René Char, Boulez, and the
like is a very different taste from a taste for fin de siècle German or
Austrian late Romantic or expressionist culture (Wagner, Mahler, Strauss, Berg,
Klimt, Rilke). One of the things Boulez has attempted to do in his music is to
harness the developmental complexity of Wagner, Mahler, and Berg to a very
different French ethos. It's the Frenchness of Boulez's music that has
attracted composers like Copland, Virgil Thomson, Stravinsky, and Rorem to his
music. (Rorem can't stand Boulez the man but loves a lot of the later music,
including Éclat/Multiples and Répons, music he's characterized as belonging to
"the continuing stream of impressionism.")
-david gable
David7Gable
By whom? I don't think I know anybody who's wild about that piece. I should
have thought the two most highly rated neoclassical period Stravinsky pieces
would be Oedipus Rex and the Symphony of Psalms, the most likely to be
performed or written about. (It does seem as if The Rake's Progress is
gradully entering the standard repertory of opera houses.)
-david gable
Samir Golescu
Both Debussy and Ravel were fantastic composers -- with Debussy perhaps
being the more profound one. It's a pity they didn't write more, but what
they did it's amazingly consistent, coherent, and creative. With Debussy
even a trifle of the youth such as the First Arabesque has an amazing
degree of imagination and sense of organizing musical events in a way
which is both intelligible and yet lacks repetitiousness (not that far
from Bach's actually). Don't even get me started on the extraordinary
musical virtues of Ravel's orchestrations, to talk only about one of the
"surface layers" of his music. . .
regards,
SG
David Wake
> Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
Richard Strauss and, I have now decided, Mahler.
David
David7Gable
Debussy especially. What I wouln't give for nine La mer's to set beside
Mahler's nine symphonies. I've always wondered why the French composers I like
the most weren't more prolific, whether or not the kinds of French things they
attempted in their music isn't one of the problems. Compare Berlioz to
Beethoven, Debussy to Schoenberg, or Boulez to Carter. Hell, Beethoven wrote
more than Berlioz, Debussy, and Boulez combined.
-david gable
mmoum[no-spam-please]
John Gavin wrote:
> Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
>
Haydn Symphonies, but I love his Piano Sonatas and String Quartets.
Don't know why the disparity.
Franck.
Berlioz (sorry, Matthew)
My most interesting change of perception: I used to absolutely hate
Bartok, but kept trying because there were enough people whose judgement
I respected who thought highly of his music. One day on a program on
NPR, a musicoligist whose name escapes me said that he didn't get
Bartok, until one day he realized that the string quartets sounded just
like late Beethoven. So I tried again with the quartets, and all of a
sudden I *got* it. Now I love all of his music, especially the quartets
and piano music.
Mike
Curtis Croulet
Mass, Missa Solemnis, Verdi's Requiem and a few others, but much of it,
especially from the Romantic era sounds pretty much alike to me. I've
gotten nowhere with the Faure Requiem.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33° 27' 59"N, 117° 05' 53"W
Ramon Khalona
> Opera...all opera...period. Tried and failed...some choral music,
> especially Berlioz...aside from his orchestral music, I just can't
> listen. Strange considering I'll listen to Berio, Ligetti...as for
> contemporaries, I really struggle with Carter...but I'm certain I'm
> not alone.
You certainly aren't. I find most of Berlioz intolerably noisy,
including his big hits. Elgar is not far behind...
RK
Bob Harper
I love La Mer, and most other Debussy for that matter (though I don't
have much experience of the vocal music, and I'll admit the Etudes are a
tough nut), but it's hard to imagine *nine* La Mers; it seems to me that
Debussy pretty well said it all with that work. Maybe the reason the
composers you mention wrote comparatively little is that their very
originality militated against repetition.
Bob Harper
Allen & Linda Tyler
John Gavin wrote:
> Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
>
> Listening to Pletnev's recording of music of C.P.E. Bach - I'm
> enjoying the playing itself and the fine recorded sound by DG but 3/4
> of the way through I realize I just DON'T GET this music. Beyond a
> certain vague rococo charm this music just doesn't stick in any way.
> Does anyone out there have a strong conviction about this music?
>
> Another blind spot for me is the music of Hummel. This includes the
> chamber music, Piano Sonatas and Concertos. People have raved about
> Stephen Hough's recording of 2 concerti, and yes, the playing is very
> fine, but again, the music just makes no impact on me as anything
> other than diversionary and mediocre.
>
> I'll just conclude for now that we have musical blind spots.
Mahler
R. Strauss
Rimsky-Korsakov (he got much better after he took Stravinsky as a
student, and while he was "rescuing" Mussorgsky)
Rachmaninoff (except for Rhapsody, Vespers, Symphonic Dances)
Anyone composing in England after Purcell and before Britten
Philip Glass
Respighi (how could he and Stravinsky studied with the same person?)
That should serve to raise the hackles of some folks out there.
Allen Tyler
David M. Cook
> I'll just conclude for now that we have musical blind spots.
Renaissance polyphony
Lovely, but I tend to start squirming rather quickly.
Liszt Faust symphony
Why does anybody record this collosal bore (I think Bernstein recorded it
twice!)
Most opera
I've put a moratorium on buying opera CD sets as I find that they tend to
gather dust on my shelves. Either opera is not compelling on CD, or I
don't have the patience for it. Maybe I should buy more highlight discs.
Librettos also tend get in the way of enjoyment (I have a similar problem
with lieder). I'm not a voice hater, though.
Richard Straus
I could probably live happily without him, though I do enjoy some of his
music.
Much solo piano music
Aside from Schubert, Ravel, and a few others, piano music simply does not
interest me very much.
Dave Cook
Larry Rinkel
"William Quentin (Bloom)" <wqm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:la5slvkgs3e44cu0n...@4ax.com...
> I have so many blind spots I'm lucky I don't walk in front of a truck.
> My biggest one is in the area of post-Romantic British music. Elgar,
> Vaughn-Williams, Holst, Arnold, Bax, Bliss...they're all lost on me.
> I have a recording of The Planets (which I almost never listen to),
> but beyond that I don't own any recordings of their music.
Since I have a blind spot for most of those dull tonal 20th-century pastoral
Brits myself, I can scarcely agree that Billy has a "blind spot."
Here and there I like some of that stuff - Elgar's Cockaigne Overture is a
lot of fun, and his Cello Concerto is genuinely moving for me, very
different from the 1st Symphony's Colonel Blimp. There is a great
Brucknerian passage for brass in Alessio (In the South), but otherwise I'll
pass. Gerontius for me is a snooze. I like V-W's Tallis Fantasia, maybe the
Fourth Symphony. And some of Britten, like Peter Grimes and the Sinfonia da
Requiem. Tippett's Midsummer Marriage, but only in small doses.
> I also
> don't much see the point of Rachmaninov -- I have one CD of his music,
> and I don't see myself buying any more in the foreseeable future.
I like him more than I used to (esp. the Paganini Rhapsody and Symphonic
Dances), but not as a daily event.
And isn't this thread improperly titled? If we were trashing Seurat and
Mondrian on a paintings board, would our thread be called "Artistic Deaf
Spots"?
- Larry
(Hoping to start a fight with all the Anglophiles, and deeply resenting
Simon's comments on some of my favorite Frenchmen. Junk indeed!)
Allen & Linda Tyler
Oops! Forgot absolute numero uno on my don't-get list: Wagner.
Allen Tyler
Terry Simmons
dag...@comcast.net (John Gavin) wrote:
> Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
>
> Listening to Pletnev's recording of music of C.P.E. Bach - I'm
> enjoying the playing itself and the fine recorded sound by DG but 3/4
> of the way through I realize I just DON'T GET this music. Beyond a
> certain vague rococo charm this music just doesn't stick in any way.
> Does anyone out there have a strong conviction about this music?
>
> Another blind spot for me is the music of Hummel. This includes the
> chamber music, Piano Sonatas and Concertos. People have raved about
> Stephen Hough's recording of 2 concerti, and yes, the playing is very
> fine, but again, the music just makes no impact on me as anything
> other than diversionary and mediocre.
>
> I'll just conclude for now that we have musical blind spots.
Yes, I agree.
But the good news is that the condition is not permanent! I have often
found that after trying for a while to "get" a composer, I've given up and
then returned to him some time later and found myself entranced.
Possibly, other musical experiences in the meantime have provided insights
that have provided the key to the previously-locked door.
--
Cheers!
Terry
John Gavin
> Simon Roberts <sd...@comcast.net> wrote
> > >>
> > >> Heavens, yes. Vast tracts of the stuff, including all of Debussy and
> > >> Ravel. Much of the time I don't doubt the quality of the music (Debussy
> > >> and Ravel, for instance), though in other instances I think it's just
> > >> junk.
>
> Someone else jumped n:
>
> > >Oh thank G*d! I was starting to worry that I was the only one... Really, it
> > >makes me feel ill. (I think it's a French music problem, I mean lots of
> > >Messiaen does the same to me.)
> >
> > Going back a bit, more-or-less the entire French baroque is lost on me too.
> > Maybe our first names have something to do with it....
> >
> > Simon>>
>
> Interesting how tastes differ.
>
> I love Debussy & Ravel. I love most opera. Pelleas & L'enfant are two
> of my favorite operas.
>
intensity. One French composer I can't fathom however is Saint Saens
- the vast majority of his works seems blatently mediocre to me.
> I find Messiaen interesting - I don't dislike his music, but I don't
> feel a close identity with it.
>
I do like Messiaen - find the Vingt Regards very moving. Late
Messiaen is harder to fathom though.
> My big blind spot - Mozart. I like a few pieces (Linz Symphony, Sym
> 29), appreciate the rest of it...and love none of it.
>
I almost hate to confess that I feel somewhat similar. On the other
hand, as much as I dislike opera, I find the Magic Flute to be a
transcendental experience. It's probably the Mozart work I love the
most.
Thomas Wood
John Gavin <dag...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:77a67936.03090...@posting.google.com...
> Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
Bruckner. Is there anything TO get?
Most of Berlioz (except for Harold in Italy, which I think is a
masterpiece).
Verdi.
Stravinsky's Firebird, and most of the Rite of Spring. Yawn. I like many of
his other works, however.
Shostakovich -- but I suspect I will someday.
Mahler -- but I'm going to listen to him til I DO get him.
Tom Wood
Bill McCutcheon
"John Gavin" <dag...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:77a67936.03090...@posting.google.com...
> Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
>
For me, two of the most-discussed composers on the NG: Mahler and Bruckner.
Also, many (most?) 20th century composers.
Except for overtures, very little opera appeals to me. I have only one
complete recording of an opera. [Anyone care to guess which one? It's not
by a composer known primarily for opera.] I'm definitely a "bleeding
chunks" kind of listener.
I don't care for most solo music, with the exception of some of the
"biggies" (Mozart, Beethoven, some Bach, Schubert, Haydn).
-- Bill McC.
Ian Bell
"RX-01" <6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bjlgh5$k4nq9$1...@ID-187302.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Oh, and Schumman's piano music sounds too simple to me.
>
Have you tried Richter and/or Cortot? (Assuming "Schumman" = Schumann.)
Schumann's piano works seem to be more dependent than average on a stellar
performance.
I can't think offhand of any major composer who's completely a write-off for
me, but I enjoy Haydn and Britten very selectively and with Debussy and
Ravel a little goes a long way.
IB
Scott Kurtz
Allen & Linda Tyler <all...@bga.com> wrote in message
news:3F5E72AB...@bga.com...
Scott Kurtz
Bill McCutcheon <wjm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3Zv7b.2539$TC1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
David7Gable
>including his big hits.
His six loud effects versus his thousand quiet ones? Do you know the Adagio
from Romeo and Juliet?
-david gable
David7Gable
>complete recording of an opera. [Anyone care to guess which one? It's not
>by a composer known primarily for opera.]
Fidelio. I doubt it's Bluebeard's Castle or Pelleas.
-david gable
Bill McCutcheon
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030909235155...@mb-m17.aol.com...
Nope, and it's also an exception to my general disinterest in 20th century
music.
-- Bill McC.
Larry Rinkel
Andrew T. Kay
Porgy and Bess?
--Todd K
Bill McCutcheon
"Lena" <len...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Well, let's put it this way. I'm proud to say that, although I'm
> blind as a bat, at least I do *not* have any spots near Debussy.
> Unlike some. :) I make up for that by being bored by all Ravel
> except the Bolero. :)
>
> Lena
Ravel's Bolero ... a piece which elicits very extreme responses. Some find
it mind-numbingly repetitious; others find it mesmerizing. [I fall into the
latter group, BTW.] There seems to be very little middle ground when that
piece is discussed.
-- Bill McC.
Bill McCutcheon
"Andrew T. Kay" <lastredl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030910002323...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Bingo! You win the rest of my complete opera collection. :-)
-- Bill McC.
John Wilson
wrote:
Noisy? I been some of the Brucknerthons that rattled the windows of
St. Florin.
John
John Wilson
wrote:
>I have a blind spot for most choral music. Oh, I can enjoy Bach's B minor
>Mass, Missa Solemnis, Verdi's Requiem and a few others, but much of it,
>especially from the Romantic era sounds pretty much alike to me. I've
>gotten nowhere with the Faure Requiem.
There isn't much of anywhere to get.
John
David7Gable
>
But Stravinsky was practically an opera composer. He wrote four of 'em if
Oedipus Rex (an opera-oratorio as the composer awkwardly labeled it) counts:
Rossignol, Mavra, Oedipus, Rake. Then there are Renard and The Flood.
Certainly a composer for every species of musical theatre.
-david gable
Sonarrat
-Sonarrat.
Mark Stenroos
Save alot of time - skip trying to get Mahler and concentrate on
Bruckner. It's more rewarding. Try approaching him through his Adagio
movements rather than the loud and somewhat episodic faster movements.
The Finale of Mahler's Third is the closest he ever came to achieving
Brucknerian ecstacy.
You don't like Verdi? Are there opera composers you do like,
particularly Italians? Verdi to me is the greatest of all opera
composers (and therefore, he resides in the top 10 of ALL composers),
surpassing even Wagner and Mozart. But then, I was a singer for many
years so my view is skewed.
How can one not love Berlioz? I knew a guitar player type who disliked
almost all romantic era music because he found the long-winded
melodies to be pointless and annoying. He was a "motif" person, so to
speak. But I attributed that to the fact that guitarists are by the
nature of their performance media minaturists. BTW - I LOVE those
long-winded melodies, especially in Berlioz's R&J.
I agree with you about Stravinsky. Outside of the Big, popular ballet
scores, I don't connect to much of it. Lord knows I've tried! Rake's
Progress is the most over-rated opera in history, IMHO.
Chacun a sa gout!
Raymond Hall
"Larry Rinkel" <LRi...@optunderline.net> wrote in message
news:6Gu7b.130893$Ay2.27...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
The 20th century would be a disaster for music without the contributions of
the British school, and not just Elgar, RVW and Walton either. Delius,
Finzi, Bliss, Rawsthorne, Moeran, Holst, Rubbra, Lloyd, Bax, Arnold,
Britten, Tippett, Simpson, and a host of others not ottomh. For a nation
that finally emerged from a 19th century dearth of composers (Das Lande ohne
Musik), the British contribution has been enormous. In the rock and pop
fields as well, if one cares for other genres.
No less has the French contribution been insignificant either, and Ravel and
Debussy have an in-built quality (especially Debussy) that will last for
ages. His piano music alone will endure for ever. Add Messiaen (sometimes
too vinegary and to be taken in small doses), and acknowledged greats such
as Boulez, and a host of tonally based composers starting with Honegger,
<list similar to Brit one above>, then the two antipathetical nations have
served the 20th century magnificently. And the French baroque (loosely
used), of the Couperins, Lully, Rameau, Boismortier, Charpentier, along with
the great Italian composers of the period, led music through the period to
the advent of Bach, Haydn and then Mozart, all three of which can lay claim
to the greatest ever composer award.
Then came Beethoven and Schubert Lied, and to this day, I struggle to
honestly say, hand over heart, that much of this music gives me any great
enjoyment. My particular blind spots. The Beethoven symphonies surprise me
occasionally, but I just cannot get any enjoyment out of the piano sonatas.
Roll on Satie for some real piano music.
Music picked up again with Franck, Liszt, Bruckner and onwards, and thank
the Good Lord for that.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
Samir Golescu
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Bill McCutcheon wrote:
> > at least I do *not* have any spots near Debussy.
> > Unlike some. :) I make up for that by being bored by all Ravel
> > except the Bolero. :)
Listen to the seldom mentioned here Histoires naturelles, preferably with
Maderna and with a text in front of you. How dare you be bored?!? (-:
> Ravel's Bolero ... a piece which elicits very extreme responses. Some find
> it mind-numbingly repetitious; others find it mesmerizing. [I fall into the
> latter group, BTW.] There seems to be very little middle ground when that
> piece is discussed.
But surely this is both a mesmerizing AND mind-numbingly repetitious
piece. Depends who's performing it!
regards,
SG
(who thinks the Bolero was one of Mengelberg's very few less successful
interpretations)
Samir Golescu
> Chacun a sa gout!
Or even "a son gout". . .
regards,
SG (:
Dan Koren
> >It's a pity they didn't write more
>
> Debussy especially. What I wouln't give for nine La mer's to set beside
> Mahler's nine symphonies. I've always wondered why the French composers I like
> the most weren't more prolific, whether or not the kinds of French things they
> attempted in their music isn't one of the problems. Compare Berlioz to
> Beethoven, Debussy to Schoenberg, or Boulez to Carter. Hell, Beethoven wrote
> more than Berlioz, Debussy, and Boulez combined.
>
Quantity does not make up for quality.
Plus a lot of what LvB wrote is just
plain scales and arpeggii.
dk
Dan Koren
> >
> I love La Mer, and most other Debussy for that matter (though I don't
> have much experience of the vocal music, and I'll admit the Etudes are a
> tough nut), but it's hard to imagine *nine* La Mers; it seems to me that
> Debussy pretty well said it all with that work. Maybe the reason the
> composers you mention wrote comparatively little is that their very
> originality militated against repetition.
>
Bingo !!!
dk
Dan Koren
> Both Debussy and Ravel were fantastic composers -- with Debussy perhaps
> being the more profound one. It's a pity they didn't write more, but what
> they did it's amazingly consistent, coherent, and creative. With Debussy
> even a trifle of the youth such as the First Arabesque has an amazing
> degree of imagination and sense of organizing musical events in a way
> which is both intelligible and yet lacks repetitiousness (not that far
> from Bach's actually). Don't even get me started on the extraordinary
> musical virtues of Ravel's orchestrations, to talk only about one of the
> "surface layers" of his music. . .
>
How about d'Indy?
dk
Dan Koren
>
> Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
>
I don't get German composers -- with very few exceptions.
dk
Andy Evans
it mind-numbingly repetitious; others find it mesmerizing. >>
I find it bland, lacking in drama, and without an obvious rhythm.
=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Larry Rinkel
news:vltcm5r...@corp.supernews.com...
> Organ music in general...
>
> -Sonarrat.
>
>
Joshua Kaufman
Moscow, Cheremushki?
*ehehehe*
-Joshua
--
AOL-IM: TerraEpon
Larry Rinkel
I was responding primarily to the word "primarily" in Bill's phrase: "not a
composer known primarily for opera." The Rake is of course Stravinsky's only
full-evening opera, and he was obviously not an operatic composer in the
sense that Puccini, Verdi, or Wagner was. If I had to pick a single genre
for which Stravinsky was primarily known, however, it would be ballet music.
Ironically, however, Gershwin would not have occurred to me either. (I was
about to propose Isaac Albéniz or George Enescu, but thought either too
improbable.) As much of Gershwin's work was in musical comedy, I would have
more readily associated him than Stravinsky with the sung musical theater,
even though Porgy is much more traditionally operatic than Of Thee I Sing
and similar Broadway musicals.
John Gavin
Interesting, I feel little affinity with Eastern European composers -
Bartok, Janacek, Smetana - maybe a bit more for Dvorak. The exception
is Liszt and to some degree Enescu. It's not that I dislike these
composers - they just provoke very little response.
Opera singing and operatic voices in general, on the other hand, drive
me up a wall. When I used to shop in Tower Records, and an opera was
playing on the speakers, I tried to get out as soon as possible.
That's how bad it is. I'm very fond of other vocal music, by the way.
Operatic voices sound unnaturally swollen to me - the vibratos as
usually unbearable to my ears.
Simon Roberts
says...
>- Larry
>(Hoping to start a fight with all the Anglophiles, and deeply resenting
>Simon's comments on some of my favorite Frenchmen. Junk indeed!)
? I specifically said I didn't think their music was junk! I don't even say it
when no-one's lookin....
Simon
Tom Daish
for having terrible taste, but evidently I'm not the only one to have blind
spots and some quite large ones, although I would guess I rule out a larger
proportion of works than most. My biggest blind spots are chamber music, most
things pre-Beethoven and opera.
Quite big chunks of repetoire really, although it would seem I'm not alone in
not finding much to enjoy in opera. It's really the timbre of the operatic voice
that does nothing for me, but it frustrates me that I can't enjoy it as much as
I'd like, mainly because it forms substantial part of many composers'
repertoires. I have several Wagner Preludes and Overtures CDs (bleeding chunks
as many so rather overgraphically describe it) and think that he'd written
symphonies and ballets, I'd attempt to buy them all, but I can't cope with his
music when the singing starts. I did buy the Brilliant Classics Ring Cycle in
the hope that one day I'd like it, but figured that if not, I could just listen
to all the orchestral passages and still get value for money!
Chamber music doesn't thrill me, I don't know why, probably just the more
limited selection of timbres - this is the main reason I particularly don't
enjoy solo instruments, particularly piano music (despite being a reasonable
pianist myself), the piano just seems so grey and uninteresting on its own.
Great in a concerto, but otherwise a bit unexciting.
Baroque and most Classical period music (and before) doesn't interest me much. I
do enjoy neo-classical or neo-baroque - anything from Stravinsky to Michael
Nyman doing neo-something I enjoy, but the real thing leaves me cold.
There are other bits and bobs - anything too astrigent and "modern," especially
if listening to it is really hard work. I like a challenge when listening to
music, but sometimes the challenge is too great!
--
Tom
Soundtrack Express, nice...
www.soundtrack-express.com
--
Ramon Khalona
At least Bruckner's noise is on pitch. :-)
RK
Ramon Khalona
> >I find most of Berlioz intolerably noisy,
> >including his big hits.
>
> from Romeo and Juliet?
On your recommendation, I'll have to give it another try.
RK
David Wake
David Wake
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Bill McCutcheon wrote:
>
> > > at least I do *not* have any spots near Debussy.
> > > Unlike some. :) I make up for that by being bored by all Ravel
> > > except the Bolero. :)
>
> Listen to the seldom mentioned here Histoires naturelles, preferably with
> Maderna and with a text in front of you. How dare you be bored?!? (-:
>
> > Ravel's Bolero ... a piece which elicits very extreme responses. Some find
> > it mind-numbingly repetitious; others find it mesmerizing. [I fall into the
> > latter group, BTW.] There seems to be very little middle ground when that
> > piece is discussed.
>
> But surely this is both a mesmerizing AND mind-numbingly repetitious
> piece. Depends who's performing it!
Whom do you recommend for Bolero? I was just listening to
Silvestri/Paris Cons., one of the more successful Boleros I've heard,
but still not right for me. Munch/Boston is OK, but I need more
portamenti. Do you know anyone who makes the E major shift truly
ecstatic?
David
David Wake
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Bill McCutcheon wrote:
>
> > > at least I do *not* have any spots near Debussy.
> > > Unlike some. :) I make up for that by being bored by all Ravel
> > > except the Bolero. :)
>
> Listen to the seldom mentioned here Histoires naturelles, preferably with
> Maderna and with a text in front of you. How dare you be bored?!? (-:
>
> > Ravel's Bolero ... a piece which elicits very extreme responses. Some find
> > it mind-numbingly repetitious; others find it mesmerizing. [I fall into the
> > latter group, BTW.] There seems to be very little middle ground when that
> > piece is discussed.
>
> But surely this is both a mesmerizing AND mind-numbingly repetitious
> piece. Depends who's performing it!
Whom do you recommend for Bolero? I was just listening to
Paul Goldstein
D'Indy was D'Andy.
Paul Goldstein
Johannes Roehl
> Chamber music doesn't thrill me, I don't know why, probably just the more
> limited selection of timbres -
You could try to start either with 'large ensemble' chamber music, like
Mozart's wind serenades, Schubert's Octet, Brahms piano quintet or with
'unusual timbre' music like the bartok quartets.
You certainly miss a lot when neglecting both chamber and opera, but I
understand that the aversion against operatic singing may be something
hard to cure.
I may be totally wrong, but I believe that this aversion against trained
singing voices is something partly due to the dominance amplified
singing in about all genres of music since more than fifty years.
Singing into a mic is less straining and thus sound s-up to a point-
more natural than unamplified trained voices. Or you listened to the
wrong recordings/performances of opera ;-)
But chamber music can actually be as colorful as symphonic music.
> Baroque and most Classical period music (and before) doesn't interest me much. I
> do enjoy neo-classical or neo-baroque - anything from Stravinsky to Michael
> Nyman doing neo-something I enjoy, but the real thing leaves me cold.
It may be the performer's fault, have youever tried younger HIP
ensembles like Musica Antiqua Koeln or Il Giardino Armonico?
Johannes
David Gomberg
own). What surprises me - nay, mystifies me - is that several responses
in this thread have included statements to the effect that "There are
pieces by X that I like, but I still don't get them." Would some of you
who said something like this please explain how this can be?
Thanks,
Dave Gomberg
For email replies, remove the NO SPAM
Dan Koren
> >
>
> composers - Bartok, Janacek, Smetana - maybe a bit more
> for Dvorak.
I like Dvorak, but not the others. Your geography is also a
bit funny: the Czech Republic is considered Central Europe.
> The exception is Liszt and to some degree Enescu.
Oh, I cannot take Enescu at all. It's never clear what he
wants to do with a musical idea, everything he wrote is so
mixed up.
> It's not that I dislike these composers - they just provoke
> very little response.
>
> Opera singing and operatic voices in general, on the other
> hand, drive me up a wall.
Same here.
> When I used to shop in Tower Records, and an opera was
> playing on the speakers, I tried to get out as soon as
> possible.
I did the same -- after launching a few hand grenades! ;-)
> That's how bad it is. I'm very fond of other vocal music,
> by the way. Operatic voices sound unnaturally swollen to
> me - the vibratos as usually unbearable to my ears.
The entire concept of mixing voices, texts and instruments
is bizarre beyond belief.
dk
Samir Golescu
On 10 Sep 2003, David Wake wrote:
> > But surely this is both a mesmerizing AND mind-numbingly repetitious
> > piece. Depends who's performing it!
>
> Whom do you recommend for Bolero? I was just listening to
> Silvestri/Paris Cons., one of the more successful Boleros I've heard,
> but still not right for me.
That is by far my present favorite. I've actually been fascinated by it so
much that I keep postponing re-listening to it, like the kid hiding the
candy from himself. Judging by Bruno Maderna's uniquely revelatory
recordings of French music I've heard, his Bolero (provided he's ever been
recorded in it) should be something to be looking forward to.
regards,
SG
Curtis Croulet
Now that you mention it, I also have a blind spot when it comes to Lieder.
It seems to me that for real comprehension one needs a native command of
German. I like German, I can read some of it, and even most of my ancestors
on my father's side were German, my French name notwithstanding. But for me
that's not sufficient to really understand Lieder. Another blind spot: R.
Strauss's Sinfonia Domestica. The very premise of this piece makes me gag.
However, I'm not totally and forever hopeless on "blind spot" music. I used
to be alternately bored and annoyed by Shostakovich, but I've recently
learned to really like him. So, Lieder fans, my dawn may yet come.
Probably not today, though.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33° 27' 59"N, 117° 05' 53"W
Curtis Croulet
> > masterpiece).
Berlioz's Requiem falls in the bin of Romantic era choral music that I
dissed in an earlier message. Most of the rest of Berlioz is OK, though --
except Les Troyens, compared to which Parsifal (which I adore) is a mere
bagatelle.
Curtis Croulet
brief.
Curtis Croulet
Masters of Melody," with a string chamber ensemble playing sacchrine
arrangements of Broadway show music and the like. After I became addicted
to classical music, it took several years for me to overcome the aversion to
chamber music induced by this program.
Daniel
> Are there any composers or compositions that you just don't get?
>
Brahms, Wagner
David M. Cook
wrote:
>> Organ music in general...
> I'm afraid that other than Bach, I have to agree.
Yeah, add organ music other than Bach (very occaisonally) or some little
bauble by Frank or Widor.
Guitar music is another blind spot. Most of it strikes me as salon music.
Britten's vocal music (I did enjoy the War Requiem once, but seem to have
lost the knack).
A lot of modern vocal music. I can enjoy a lot of modern orchestral music,
but very few modern composers seem to write well for the voice.
Dave Cook
Johannes Roehl
>
> > (I have a similar problem with lieder)
>
> Now that you mention it, I also have a blind spot when it comes to Lieder.
> It seems to me that for real comprehension one needs a native command of
> German. I like German, I can read some of it, and even most of my ancestors
> on my father's side were German, my French name notwithstanding. But for me
> that's not sufficient to really understand Lieder.
I don't think that's the main problem. How many people like Italian
opera with only a very incomplete knowledge of Italian? If one does not
understand a word it may be a problem, but as long as you have texts
with translations and are able to figure things out (which you probably
can if you have some reading ability), this shouldn't prevent you.
Lieder is a strange genre, though, and I can understand that some people
will never get it, regardless of the language used. Unfortunately some
of the greatest things, Schubert, Schumann and Mahler did (to name only
these three) they cast in the form of lieder...
Or have you ever tried Dowland's lute songs or a piece like the Britten
Serenade for tenor, horn, strings (no language problem there)?
Johannes
Roland van Gaalen
My fault, my loss, I admit!
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
E-mail: R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl (replace AT by @)
David7Gable
More HIP hubris: that he doesn't like Baroque music is the fault of ALL
pre-HIP performers?
>have youever tried younger HIP
>ensembles like Musica Antiqua Koeln or Il Giardino Armonico?
In other words, he might like his Baroque music remade by HIP to sound like
neo-classical Stravinsky or minimalism, which is what HIP performances mostly
are.
-david gable
David7Gable
>I'm afraid that other than Bach, I have to agree.
Even those late Brahms pieces that are not quite à la manière de Bach, Larry?
Or pre-Bach organ music?
-david gable
Tom Daish
Johannes Roehl wrote:
> Tom Daish schrieb:
>
>
>>Chamber music doesn't thrill me, I don't know why, probably just the more
>>limited selection of timbres -
>
>
> You could try to start either with 'large ensemble' chamber music, like
> Mozart's wind serenades, Schubert's Octet, Brahms piano quintet or with
> 'unusual timbre' music like the bartok quartets.
Your mention of an Octet makes me think I really ought to get the Mendelssohn
one too. I do quite like Bartok and some Schubert (well, the symphonies,
although the Trout Quintet I did especially enjoy), so they would be a good
place to start. I guess Brahms could count as another blind spot, the symphonies
don't inspire me greatly. I think I previously described them as Beethoven with
the guts removed - kind of like Beethoven, not quite pastiche, but with a lot of
the best facets missing. It could be the performance (Muti on DG), so I will
persevere with Brahms and maybe try out the chamber music too!
> You certainly miss a lot when neglecting both chamber and opera, but I
> understand that the aversion against operatic singing may be something
> hard to cure.
It's curious as I can usually cope with it in the context of a Mass or, as I've
just listened, Mahler's 8th symphony, that kind of thing. I would guess it's
more to do with the less theatrical nature of the music, plus that the vocalists
are just an element and the orchestra and choir are crucial elements alongside.
> I may be totally wrong, but I believe that this aversion against trained
> singing voices is something partly due to the dominance amplified
> singing in about all genres of music since more than fifty years.
> Singing into a mic is less straining and thus sound s-up to a point-
> more natural than unamplified trained voices. Or you listened to the
> wrong recordings/performances of opera ;-)
You might be right. Amplified singing is, in some ways, more natural than
operatic singing and since I'm accustomed to it everywhere, the force of
operatic style is simply too much. As for wrong recordings, I don't know really.
I guess I've never really like opera and so, aside from the Brilliant Classics
Ring (bought as a chance too good to pass up), I've not bought any.
> But chamber music can actually be as colorful as symphonic music.
You're probably right and a lot of orchestral music has only small groups
playing at any one time anyway. With a bit of an aversion to a particular type
of music and given the wealth of chamber music, it's even harder to know where
to start. At least with symphonies, there are rarely more than a dozen (with
obvious exceptions of course) and so collecting the set to see what you like,
isn't too hard.
> It may be the performer's fault, have youever tried younger HIP
> ensembles like Musica Antiqua Koeln or Il Giardino Armonico?
Possibly, but again, it not being a style I enjoy and never having been thrilled
be, I've simply not tried to acquire baroque music. I suppose there is some that
I like, all obvious things - Zadok the Priest (one of my all time favourite
pieces of choral music, funnily enough!), The Brandenberg Concertos (which I
think I do have on a HIP recording, which may help) and a couple of other bits
of Bach and Handel. I suppose Vivaldi is OK, but with so much to choose from,
where do you go after the Four Seasons?!
Thanks for the advice though, much appreciated.
Bill McCutcheon
"Curtis Croulet" <curt...@pe.net> wrote in message
news:vluupc2...@corp.supernews.com...
Perhaps so, although I never really thought about that; it's only about 1:15
long. [That's one minute, 15 seconds, for those more accustomed to
Wagnerian scale! :-) ]
-- Bill McC.
Samir Golescu
On 10 Sep 2003, David7Gable wrote:
> In other words, he might like his Baroque music remade by HIP to sound
> like neo-classical Stravinsky or minimalism, which is what HIP
> performances mostly are.
Minimalism? Yes. "Neo-classical Stravinsky"?? You must have an exceedingly
good day.
regards,
SG
Lena
> > > at least I do *not* have any spots near Debussy.
> > > Unlike some. :) I make up for that by being bored by all Ravel
> > > except the Bolero. :)
>
> Listen to the seldom mentioned here Histoires naturelles, preferably with
> Maderna and with a text in front of you.
I'm curious now...
> How dare you be bored?!? (-:
I'm practicing. I'm ramping up to get the courage to tell Dan off. :)
> > Ravel's Bolero ... a piece which elicits very extreme responses. Some find
> > it mind-numbingly repetitious; others find it mesmerizing. [I fall into the
> > latter group, BTW.] There seems to be very little middle ground when that
> > piece is discussed.
>
> But surely this is both a mesmerizing AND mind-numbingly repetitious
> piece. Depends who's performing it!
And not even on that! :)
Lena
Simon Roberts
>
>>It may be the performer's fault,
>
>More HIP hubris: that he doesn't like Baroque music is the fault of ALL
>pre-HIP performers?
Or at least those he heard. Depending on what he heard I wouldn't find that at
all surprising. Regardless of whether they're "authentic," the best HIP baroque
performances transform the music for me and, evidently, some others.
>>have youever tried younger HIP
>>ensembles like Musica Antiqua Koeln or Il Giardino Armonico?
>
>In other words, he might like his Baroque music remade by HIP to sound like
>neo-classical Stravinsky or minimalism, which is what HIP performances mostly
>are.
Performances by the groups cited don't sound at all like that, but even if they
did, why not?
Simon
Lena
> "Lena" <len...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > Well, let's put it this way. I'm proud to say that, although I'm
> > blind as a bat, at least I do *not* have any spots near Debussy.
> > Unlike some. :) I make up for that by being bored by all Ravel
> > except the Bolero. :)
> >
>
> Ravel's Bolero ... a piece which elicits very extreme responses. Some find
> it mind-numbingly repetitious; others find it mesmerizing. [I fall into the
> latter group, BTW.] There seems to be very little middle ground when that
> piece is discussed.
I was kidding a little (though I actually do like the Bolero). No,
not because of that movie. :)
In reality Ravel is just a slightly myopic spot, and I don't know
Ravel particularly well. My actual blind spots are so numerous they
will bore everyone even more than a tyical piece by... by..... oh
well. :)
Thanks to all for the Ravel recommendations!
Lena
Lena
> Most of British music between the death of Purcell and the mid-1950s.
(laugh)
> Quite a bit of Kurtag (seems like the surface trappings of a received
> 'musicality' without much of the substance a lot of the time,
> commodity music; nonetheless there are a few remarkable pieces)
Interesting opinion. Well, interesting to me. Mainly because I've
recently started thinking a little along those lines about some Kurtag
heard, although I don't view it as negatively as you seem to. (I.e. I
wouldn't call it "without substance"; it's more that I found myself at
odds with the musical "gestures" in some pieces (chamber music).)
Lena
Sonarrat
news:AbD7b.135534$Ay2.29...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> "Sonarrat" <sona...@postmark.net> wrote in message
> news:vltcm5r...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Organ music in general...
>
> I'm afraid that other than Bach, I have to agree.
I don't even like the Bach. I had several organist friends at Oberlin, and
heard quite a few performances, all sorts of different composers. Just a lot of
tasteless, self-absorbed bombast, and not much else...
-Sonarrat.
Larry Rinkel
news:20030910164523...@mb-m07.aol.com...
I don't really like the sound of the instrument, I'm afraid. I don't know
the Brahms (though I think I have a CD of it somewhere), but I was thinking
more of the Widor and Vierne type of piece.
Lewis Perin
I can understand saying that about some of the early virtuoso pieces,
but have you ever heard e.g. the Leipzig chorale preludes? The trio
sonatas?
/Lew
---
Lew Perin / pe...@acm.org
Simon Smith
Lewis Perin <pe...@panix.com> wrote:
I suspect Sonarrat was referring to "all sorts of different composers"
rather than Bach specifically. I have exactly the same problem with organ
music. A lot of it simply makes me want to scream. Especially Franck. And
Messiaen at his most hyper-religiously pointless. Though part of my
aversion to the organ is, I suspect, due to some organists I have known.
This thread is very interesting: I've had my own crack at it, and I could
have been a lot more thorough than I was given the number of times I've
found myself nodding and 'me too'-ing at posts by others. And yet all of us
have surely seen just as many posts which have provoked incredulity: for
instance people who don't get/like Rachmaninov (probably my one true god at
the end of the day), which has me leaping up and down, insistent that they
'just haven't heard the right pieces/performances/whatever'. I guess what
it boils down to is that we are all very different, and no greatness is so
great that it communicates to absolutely everyone.
That said, I still don't understand how people can't like Rachmaninov :)
--
Simon Smith | http://www.ingemisco.com/
"I am myself only in music. Music is enough for a whole lifetime - but a
lifetime is not enough for music." - Sergei Rachmaninov